Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

nonhocapito wrote: Is there in any of the chapters a tentative explanation as to why the sun-mars binary system would follow the earth?

Ciao Nonho,

Good to see you back - and in your usual 'critical' form - on this forum.

Now, let me just state the following 'general sentiment' of mine (not specifically directed at you, dear Nonho!). Don't get me wrong : I am really happy to reply to everyone's questions regarding the TYCHOS model - and will forever enjoy doing so (well, being a mere mortal, perhaps not "forever"!...). However, please consider that I have spent five years of my life working at this - and have just released my book which lays out and illustrates - as clearly as possible - my entire half-decade-long research. So I don't think it would be too much too ask if anyone submitting questions here at this forum will be so kind to first read my (full) book. Thanks!

As for your question, Nonho:

Firstly, the Sun-Mars binary system does not "follow" Earth. It revolves around Earth which, for reasons that need further study, appears to have been "captured in the middle of the Sun-Mars dance floor". I understand that - as indeed seems to be the case - most people's first reaction to this will be of the "Newtonian" kind, so to speak: "Wot? How can such a Huge Thing like the Sun orbit around teeny-weeny Earth?" My answer to this would be: I don't know. Yet, the beauty and wisdom (pardon the pompous expression) of the TYCHOS thesis, in my honest opinion, is that it doesn't pretend to provide a "TOE" (Theory Of Everything) - or to formulate some fantastic / universal "Laws of Physics" (such as those that some infamous luminaries have tried, in the past, to pass off as "scientific"). It only demonstrates, through logical and empirically-supported processes, the only possible geometric layout of our surrounding cosmos. By eliminating the impossible (such as the Copernican / Keplerian / and flat earth theories ), I think we can make progress as an intelligent human species and, at the same time, combat the ignorance in which the self-anointed "elite" of this world wishes us all (the common people) to linger. If this doesn't seem to be a worthwhile endeavor to you, dear Nonho, I don't know what to say - but I'll keep hoping that your surly and morose outlook on certain things will, in time, evolve into something more propitious. As I see it, life is good - and we can all make it better, given due intellectual efforts.

Lastly, to address the question of scope & opportunity of discussing astronomical topics on Cluesforum (which has dealt, for almost a decade now, with the many lies, phony science & fakeries infesting our world), I'd humbly say that the TYCHOS is the last nail in the coffin for the NASA fakers & co. I'm sorry to see that this fact is lost on you, Nonho. Cheer up and celebrate, my friend !

Dear Simon, thank you for your polite explanation and for acknowledging my voice despite my sporadic non-cheerful apparitions. I AM, in fact, reading the book.I do accept the idea that this model might destroy NASA the moment it goes mainstream, but this is beyond the question whether, because of this, it belongs on the same forum as the research on media fakery. The two issues, the way I see it, are separate. Furthermore, the research on media fakery itself has gone nowhere since the scientific discussion took over around here. You can call this opinion pessimistic or polemic but it cannot possibly surprise you coming from me. There are more cogent reasons why I believe it would have been better for Tychos as well not to be on this forum. Though I guess it is too late to argue them.

Anyhow. I have a technical question: seeing that the book is only, understandably, available to those who subscribe, is it OK to post here images taken from the book? While part of me hates getting into a topic I probably don't have much predisposition for, I do am intrigued by and have questions about one or two of the diagrams, and I'd love to post them here, but I don't want to go against the policies by which you are protecting your intellectual work, posting pictures that you'd rather keep reserved.(In case disclosing the material is a no-no: Wordpress has some very easy to use forum plugins (bbpress, buddypress) that would allow you to quickly implement a small forum within the Tychos website only for your subscribers. Not nice, sure, but helpful to those who might be itching to comment or discuss things directly from those pages using your material. Or else, a private thread here open only to your subscribers could also work although you would have to attribute the access to each user manually.)

I have of course no problems with anyone posting here, for discussion, the illustrations / graphics I made for my book. As it is, I plan to do it myself, from time to time, so as to highlight some important cosmic aspects and riddles which the TYCHOS model resolves.

You wrote: "There are more cogent reasons why I believe it would have been better for Tychos as well not to be on this forum."

Let me take a guess at what those cogent reasons might be. Hmm, perhaps because 'rational & scientific-minded' people, professors, academics and such folks will be put off by the fact that the Tychos model is discussed at a "conspiracy forum"? Well, sorry if I'm reading your mind incorrectly - and I truly hope I'm wrong about that wild guess of mine. Please note that the tychos.info website has no link to this forum - so it is fairly unlikely that anyone (interested / invested in astronomy) finding tychos.info will ever know about the existence of Cluesforum.info. Besides, wouldn't it be rather weird for me, having founded this forum almost ten years ago (with Hoi Polloi), to remain silent here regarding my latest, five-year-long research efforts? How could I possibly justify such a thing to this forum's readers?

The way I see it, no intelligent person in this world should feel ashamed for using Cluesforum as a learning tool / resource - as a way of widening their perspective and knowledge about the workings of this planet and of the human species as a whole. As for the academic scientific community, there will be no way out of the embarrassment which they will have to face - once they'll realize that the Copernican / Keplerian model is outright impossible.

On the question if scientific subjects belong on a forum about media fakery I'd say they go hand in hand. One of the objectives with media fakery could be to keep us in the dark regarding real science so they can have the upper hand by knowing things we don't. The NASA hoax is a marvel hoax and a money extraction machine for sure, but may also be a way to lock us into the Copernican mindset so that we will automatically reject any questioning of it.

Last edited by patrix on March 22nd, 2018, 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dear Simon, you like everyone else here seem to be always ignoring or forgetting the other side of the coin, which is the fact that weird/outlandish/unfounded scientific claims are regularly used as disinfo tools. They are used to trap researchers in bottomless discussions, getting them to forget about political events or the propaganda at hand, while achieving the non secondary purpose of discrediting either effort. That's the reason as you well know of my original opposition to encouraging scientific discussions on a media fakery forum. You surely remember that it wasn't long ago that discussion on flat earth was going rampant on this forum as well, on top of the satellites/nature of light/propulsion in vacuum space and whatever else, while out of here there were websites called "earthclues" or "flatclues" or whatever, I don't remember, designed to directly discredit our research. I wonder if you or Hoi have ever tried to compute how many good researcher have dropped out of the cluesforum also because exhausted by discussions that go nowhere. It's a fact that people, including me and you, have a way of getting sucked into these things forgetting the more urgent political and social transformations happening under their eyes (so that, just as a way of example, we fundamentally missed the chance to be the ones describing more in depth the way Social media and their artificial consensus model has taken control of news media and political discussions in the past few years). You will snicker at the choice of words, but in a way there is an aspect of escapism in this from which it would be wise to defend ourselves.As an added reason, while it's legitimate to be so self-assured and celebratory about your achievements, there could be reasons to be a bit more prudent, in case a setback down the line doesn't affect the research as a whole. That's the understated I would see it, I guess, leaving the self-celebrations for later.

Anyhow, I apologize for going off topic.

Here's one diagram that I'd like to ask you about:

I've included your comment at the bottom in case it is relevant to my question, although I don't fully understand it.

I find the diagram a bit confusing. Why is the earth tilted two different ways? Regardless of the time of the year of course the Copernican tilt is always inclined in the same direction along the orbit, the only difference being what portions of the earth are exposed to the Sun during the day... The horn of Africa could never face up and down, right? Maybe the confusion comes only from the fact that we see Africa facing us both times, just as a convenient way to reuse the same graph? Is this what you mean with the comment below the image? Perhaps a graph including day and night could be more helpful to the average reader, something like this (super quick google search).On the topic itself, isn't the fact that the elevation doesn't change also explainable with the incredible faraway distance of the stars, which the Copernican model takes for proven?

I thank you for alerting me to that (flawed - in a Copernican sense) graphic which I made some time ago while assuming that Copernican theory has the celestial North straight above our tilted Earth - which, in fact, is not what the theory says. I will remove that graphic from my "axial tilt" chapter - which has enough good points already to make my case that Earth cannot be tilted at 23.3° while revolving around a supposed 300 -million-km-wide orbit around the Sun. However, I still think there should be some visible difference in elevation of our North star from a given point at the equator, between December and June. Since the predictable objection that Copernican advocates will have is that "the North star is unimaginably distant, thus, NO elevation difference can be detected", I am satisfied that this other graphic in my "axial tilt" chapter is sufficient to address this particular issue :

Yes, by Copernican standards, the entire celestial sphere would also be tilted along with Earth's tilt, making all the stars oriented the same as in the TYCHOS. We are just shifting everything to be "even" with a non-tilted Earth while the Sun's ecliptic gains the roughly 23-degree tilt.

I copied that graphic without even really thinking about the nagging issue.

nonhocapito is right, though — some kind of point could be improved there, but for the time being let's just remove the false straw man. There is plenty of ammunition left in the book against the idea that "the stars are so far away that there should be no change".

The angles of that triangle with a 300 million km base look very different should you draw the remaining two sides - Vector A and B - true to scale (323+ light years). It would indeed appear that Polaris is directly over "Lisa" in both cases

sykkelmannen wrote: The angles of that triangle with a 300 million km base look very different should you draw the remaining two sides - Vector A and B - true to scale (323+ light years). It would indeed appear that Polaris is directly over "Lisa" in both cases

Yes, dear sykkelman. That is indeed the 'funny' notion upheld by the Copernican theorists : "the stars are so incredibly distant that 300.000.000 km (300 Million kilometers) of our planet's lateral displacement will not affect in the slightest the perceived celestial position of Polaris, our North Star".

Let us now look at a star reputed to be roughly 10 times closer than Polaris, namely Delta Capricorni. We shall use our nearby Mars as a visual / geometric reference. Note that the dotted vectors (Earth-Mars-Delta Capricorni) in the below graphic are perfectly parallel (and would stay so - no matter how long they were drawn).

Here's how you can verify for yourself that this (i.e. Mars lining up with that same star within 546 days - or ca. 1.5 years) would indeed be a physical impossibility (if the Copernican geometric layout of our solar system were true) :

Stretch out your arm and hold a forefinger in front of your eyes (your forefinger will represent Mars).Line up your forefinger with a distant streetlight (which will represent the distant star).Now, while keeping your head and forefinger steady, step sideways for thirty meters to your right (or to your left).

As you will see, your forefinger will not be aligned with the distant streetlight anymore - no matter how distant that streetlight is from you.

In the Tychos model, here is why Mars will indeed (and naturally) line up with a given star at both ends of a 546-day period :

Dear Simon, I hate being always the stickler (believe it or not I do it out of good will and not to give you gratuitous problems!), but as I am chewing on chapter 10 and 11, I was wondering, do you rely all your calculations and observations solely on the Neave Planetarium? Have they been cross-verified with other tools and if so, wouldn't it be better to indicate so? I mean I've found descriptions of Dean Neave elsewhere as a "digital artist and interface designer" and his planetarium seems to be hardly a tool that an astronomer would use... or am I completely off with this? I mean its interface is designed in Flash (hardly a programming language for mathematicians)...

In relation to this, when you include in this specific case of chapters 10 and 11 the dates of the conjunctions, wouldn't it be better to also include the time of day, for anyone to exactly verify the phenomena (especially considering that all the interval of days are indicated with decimals)? Or is this preoccupation irrelevant? (I guess it might be seeing that the intervals are averaged, but still...)For example, this is Mercury on March 3, 2004 (which you indicate as a conjunction in chapter 10), according NASA's "Solar system simulator":

as obtained via https://space.jpl.nasa.gov/ (the only reason I'm using this, or suggesting using this in your demonstration as well, would be for nobody to doubt that there is any imperfection in the data since you derive it from the "competition").

To get what seems to be a conjunction I have to move to March 4, @3:00:

In case you don't want to use NASA anyhow, I seem to be getting similar results from worldwidetelescope.org, although this is the only date I've tried. Are there any obvious reasons for the discrepancies between your table and these results? Or are the differences in this particular case irrelevant?

That NASA / JPL simulator is quite useless as far as getting the precise positions or / and conjunctions of celestial bodies. This, for two reasons:1: It doesn't show the all-important RA (Right Ascension) of the celestial bodies2: It doesn't allow you to choose the exact location of the earthly observer

Having used the Neave Planetarium for many years (and cross-verified, for instance, countless planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses over the centuries / millennia with other astronomical tables) I am satisfied that it is a quite accurate tool for my purposes (which were mostly concerned with the RA values of each of our system's bodies). For instance, here is a screenshot I just made (from the Neave Planetarium) of your March 3, 2004 example of the Mercury-Sun conjunction listed in my table titled "14 successive Mercury Synodic Periods" :

As you can see, both the Sun and Mercury were at RA 22h58min on March 3, 2004 at noon (as viewed from Rome Italy) - i.e. an exact conjunction.As for the time of day, I should probably have specified at the bottom of my tables that "all dates are as viewed at noon from Rome, Italy".And as for your comment about decimals, I'm sure you understand that, when averaging a set of integer values, you might get a non-integer ('decimaled') value. For instance, in that Mercury table, I averaged 14 successive Sun-Mercury conjunctions (totalling 1636 days): 1636/14 = 116.857

Thank you for your clarification, Simon. I know it looks like I'm only searching for problems but I'm also in awe with the scope of this work. Just trying to grasp it all before I stand in line to pay the compliments.

A coworker I am on good terms with reportedly use to work at NASA. He's an intelligent level headed dude but I've never shared with him any of my thoughts on media fakery. Nonetheless I showed him the tychos.info page. This is what he wrote back:

"Well the geometric model is nice. Creating a model that works for the motion of the planets in the sky as seen from Earth. But this is nonsense. We have spacecraft that have been through the solar system and have used planetary gravity to get there.

Really clever, but not realistic."

I don't think he's lying (he likely believes what he's regurgitating). But he's relying on media fakery as evidence of the heliocentric theory.

ghostofpedro wrote: But he's relying on media fakery as evidence of the heliocentric theory.

Indeed, dear Ghostofpedro.

And since I started to notice that media fakery and scientific matters are so intimately intertwined, I decided to embark in this astronomical research - about five years ago. It should be obvious to everyone that, if I believed in space travel (as peddled by NASA & co), my brain would never have envisaged the possibility that the Copernican model of our solar system (as we were all taught at school) was questionable - let alone impossible (as my TYCHOS model demonstrates).

As I see it, this is the beauty and power of Cluesforum. By bouncing ideas between each other, those ideas can 'snowball' into even larger discoveries.